Shaun Lee Thomas v. United States, 596 F. App'x 808

Shaun Lee Thomas, a federal inmate, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
He alleged two primary failures: (1) counsel did not object to defense witness Karen Delano’s testimony that the victim seemed credible (an assertedly improper credibility-bolstering statement); and (2) counsel failed to call two defense witnesses (his aunt and cousin) who allegedly would have impeached physical-evidence testimony about child-sized underwear.
At trial, counsel had earlier objected to other credibility-bolstering testimony and obtained a jury instruction that the jury decides witness credibility; counsel also used Delano’s testimony tactically to elicit other statements suggesting alternative explanations for evidence and then argued lack of credibility in closing.
The government presented DNA testimony showing no DNA of Thomas or the victim on the underwear and Cheeks (girlfriend) was unsure whether the underwear she gave to FBI was the same she found in Thomas’s luggage; Thomas had also admitted the underwear belonged to the victim.
The district court denied an evidentiary hearing and denied relief; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of § 2255 relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for not objecting to Delano’s credibility‑bolstering testimony	Thomas: failure to object allowed improper bolstering that prejudiced the verdict	Government: counsel’s choice was strategic, prior objections succeeded, and Delano’s testimony was used to impeach and support defense theory	Court: No ineffective assistance — counsel’s decision was a reasonable strategic choice and, even if deficient, no prejudice shown
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to call two defense witnesses (aunt and cousin)	Thomas: Baker and Ellis would have testified that Cheeks admitted giving unrelated underwear to FBI under pressure, impeaching physical evidence	Government: their testimony would be cumulative, non‑exculpatory, and would not meaningfully impeach Cheeks’ or her daughter’s testimony; strong other evidence supported conviction	Court: No ineffective assistance — failure to call them was a strategic decision and omitted testimony would not have produced prejudice

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance + prejudice)
Chandler v. United States, 218 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 2000) (strong presumption that counsel’s strategic choices are reasonable)
Snowden v. Singletary, 135 F.3d 732 (11th Cir. 1998) (expert credibility‑bolstering testimony can violate due process when conviction rests almost entirely on victim testimony)
Dorsey v. Chapman, 262 F.3d 1181 (11th Cir. 2001) (improper credibility testimony may be harmless where other evidence supports conviction and counsel used testimony strategically)
Winthrop-Redin v. United States, 767 F.3d 1210 (11th Cir. 2014) (standards for § 2255 evidentiary hearings)
Waters v. Thomas, 46 F.3d 1506 (11th Cir. 1995) (calling witnesses is a quintessential strategic decision rarely second‑guessed)
Fortenberry v. Haley, 297 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir. 2002) (omitted exculpatory witnesses more likely prejudicial where conviction rests on little evidence)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (likelihood of different result must be substantial, not merely conceivable)